Anticipatory Bail Is Not a Safe Haven for Repeat Offenders: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Protection to Accused in Cow Slaughter Case

“The right to bail is not to be confused with the right to impunity. Where liberty is demonstrably misused, the law must respond with firmness.” — Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a plea for anticipatory bail filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by one Aasif, an alleged repeat offender in cow slaughter cases. Justice Sandeep Moudgil, while pronouncing the judgment in CRM-M-42090-2025, observed that anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief meant to protect the innocent, “not a sanctuary for those who repeatedly violate the law with impunity.”

The Court expressed grave concern over the alleged facts of the case, including the recovery of two cows packed in a vehicle in deplorable condition, along with slaughtering tools, suggesting that the accused was engaged in organized and repeated violations of cow protection laws.

“Judicial Leniency Once Shown Has Been Misused”: High Court Condemns Repeat Offence Pattern

In a sharply worded analysis, the Court rejected the petitioner’s plea by citing not only the nature of the alleged offence but also his criminal antecedents. The petitioner had earlier received bail in similar cases but appeared to have continued engaging in the same criminal activity.

Justice Moudgil emphasized: “Anticipatory bail is not an open invitation for habitual offenders to escape the process of law.”

He referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 730], where it was clearly held that: “A person with criminal antecedents is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail.”

"Acts That Offend Constitutional Morality Cannot Be Tolerated": Cow Slaughter Allegation Raises Social Alarm

The FIR, No. 111 dated 03.04.2025, was registered under Section 13(2) of the Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, at PS Sadar Nuh, based on specific inputs that the accused was involved in transporting cows for illegal slaughter.

During interception near Palla turn, the petitioner and two co-accused were allegedly caught red-handed, and upon inspection of the vehicle, the police recovered two cows, a knife, an axe, and other slaughter-related paraphernalia.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s conduct violated not only statutory provisions but also deeply held moral and constitutional values:

“Article 48 of the Constitution reflects the moral and economic ethos of our society... The cow is not only a pious animal but an integral part of India’s agrarian economy.”

The Court recalled the landmark judgment in State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat [(2005) 8 SCC 534], which upheld the constitutional validity of cow slaughter prohibitions and recognized Article 51A(g)’s moral obligation for compassion toward all living beings.

Petitioner Not on Parity with Co-Accused Who Was Granted Bail Post Investigation

The petitioner had claimed parity with co-accused Aman, who was granted regular bail by the High Court. However, the Court distinguished the cases, clarifying that:

“The co-accused was granted regular bail only after custodial interrogation and completion of key investigative steps. The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail pre-arrest, and thus, stands on a completely different footing.”

No Shield for Repeat Violators of Cow Protection Law

Justice Moudgil concluded that the alleged act of repeated and deliberate cow slaughter not only violates the law but also threatens public peace and constitutional morality. Observing the petitioner’s past conduct, the Court was unconvinced that liberty, if granted, would not be misused again.

“This Court is conscious of the need to safeguard individual liberty. But where such liberty is demonstrably misused... the petition stands dismissed.”

This judgment reiterates the position that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief, available only in exceptional circumstances and not to be claimed as a matter of right, particularly by repeat offenders in socially sensitive crimes.

Date of Decision: 5th August 2025